Re: Captured product vs. service
I certainly agree with Marc that a non-exclusive license from the author to the publisher, along with whatever terms and conditions may be needed to, e.g., make back issues available in some format or other similar provisions, could address the problem raised by the APS via Steve. The transfer of full copyright is not required. The National Academy of Sciences, for instance, currently asks the authors of papers or presentations in symposium or conference proceedings to sign a non-exclusive license, not transfer the copyright.  Paul From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Marc Couture Sent: Sat 2/20/2010 3:16 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Captured product vs. service Steve Berry wrote: if the journal that published the article wants to make back issues available in some new format, e.g. some new electronic means, and the authors hold the copyrights, then the journal must get permission from every author to put their articles in the new format. There is another solution, much more author-friendly: instead of requiring transfer of the full copyright, then giving (back) the author some specific permissions, the journal could simply require to be granted a non-exclusive license to do what it wants, that is, to publish the article in any format. But it appears the APS wants more than make back issues available in some new format (see below). ... APS now holds the copyrights but gives authors full permission to distribute their articles with no constraint. This seems to achieve the situation for authors that we'd like to see, yet does not constrain the publisher.  It's true that, according to the APS copyright agreement (http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf), authors may distribute quite freely, in print and electronic formats, their postprints, or revised manuscripts. As publishers copyright agreements go, this is quite generous. But restrictions to the uses allowed the author do exist: for instance, use must not involve a fee; derivative works must contain less than 50% of the original and at least 10% of new content. This means that an author could not publish a translation, or a slightly modified version of his article, as a book chapter, without permission from the publisher. I think this could also qualifiy as a situation we (authors) would like to see. Marc Couture
Re: Captured product vs. service
There are multiple ways to achieve that same goal. Â If the society is willing to give up copyright altogether, that offers one pathway.For authors to give publishers unrestricted licenses is another. Â Both represent larger changes from the present system than for the publisher to give an unrestricted license to the author. Â But let's look one step further: Â can any reader, anyone who downloads a publication, distribute that download completely without restriction? Just to stimulate... Best to all, Steve Berry On Feb 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Marc Couture wrote: Steve Berry wrote: if the journal that published the article wants to make back issues available in some new format, e.g. some new electronic means, and the authors hold the copyrights, then the journal must get permission from every author to put their articles in the new format. There is another solution, much more author-friendly: instead of requiring transfer of the full copyright, then giving (back) the author some specific permissions, the journal could simply require to be granted a non-exclusive license to do what it wants, that is, to publish the article in any format. But it appears the APS wants more than make back issues available in some new format (see below). ... APS now holds the copyrights but gives authors full permission to distribute their articles with no constraint. This seems to achieve the situation for authors that we'd like to see, yet does not constrain the publisher. Â It's true that, according to the APS copyright agreement (http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf), authors may distribute quite freely, in print and electronic formats, their postprints, or revised manuscripts. As publishers copyright agreements go, this is quite generous. But restrictions to the uses allowed the author do exist: for instance, use must not involve a fee; derivative works must contain less than 50% of the original and at least 10% of new content. This means that an author could not publish a translation, or a slightly modified version of his article, as a book chapter, without permission from the publisher. I think this could also qualifiy as a situation we (authors) would like to see. Marc Couture
Re: Funder mandated deposit in centralised or subject based
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Kiley ,Robert r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote: we want to avoid a situation where a researcher is required to deposit papers in both an IR (to meet their institutions mandate) and a central repository, like PMC and UKPMC, (to meet the needs of a funder such as the Wellcome Trust). It is so gratifying to hear that the Wellcome Trust -- the very first research funder to mandate OA self-archiving -- is looking into resolving the problem of multiple deposit (IRs and multiple CRs, Central Repositories).. The solution will have to be bottom-up (IRs to CRs) not top-down (CRs to IRs) for the simple reason that the Institutions are the providers of *all* research, not just funded research, and the solution has to be one that facilitates universal institutional deposit mandates, not just funder mandates. IRs and CRs are interoperable. So, in principle, automatic import/export could be from/to either direction. But since Institutions are the universal providers of all research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines, it is of the greatest importance that the solution should be systematically compatible with inducing all institutions to mandate self-archiving. For an institution that has already mandated self-archiving, the capability of automatically back-harvesting some of its own research output is fine (but, if you think about it, not even necessary). If it has already mandated self-archiving for all of its output, back-harvesting is redundant, since forward harvesting (IR to CR) is the only thing that's still left to be done. For an institution that has *not* yet mandated self-archiving, however (and that means most institutions on the planet, so far!) it makes an *immense* difference whether funders mandate IR deposit or CR deposit. If funders mandate CR deposit (even with the possibility of automatic back-harvesting to the author's IR), institutions that have not yet mandated self-archiving are not only left high and dry (if they aren't mandating local self-archiving for any of their research output, they couldn't care less about back-harvesting the funded subset of it); but the synergistic opportunity for funder mandates to encourage the institutions to mandate self-archiving for the rest of their research output is lost -- unless funders systematically mandate IR deposit. For funder-mandated IR deposit launches and seeds IRs, and makes the adoption of an institutional mandate for the rest of the institutional research output all the more natural and attractive. Funder mandates requiring institute-external deposit (even if they offer an automatic back-harvesting option) not only fail to encourage institutional deposit and institutional deposit mandates, but they increase the disincentive, and in two ways: (1) Authors, already obliged to deposit funded research institution-externally, will resist all the more the prospect of having to do institutional deposit too (whether for funded or unfunded research); hence they will be less favorably disposed toward institutional mandates rather than more favorably (as they would be if they were already doing their funder deposits institutionally); consequently their institution's management too will be less favorably disposed toward adopting an institutional mandate. (2) Worse, some funder mandates (including, unfortunately, the Wellcome Trust mandate) allow fulfillment to be done by *publishers* doing the (central) deposit instead of authors. That adds yet another layer of divergent confusion to deposit mandates (apart from making it all the harder for funders to monitor compliance with their mandates), since fundee responsibility for compliance is offloaded onto publishers, who are not only not fundees (hence not bound by the mandate), but not all that motivated to deposit any sooner than absolutely necessary. (This is also, of course, a conflation with Gold OA publishing, where the funders are paid for the OA.) The natural, uniform, systematic and optimal solution that solves all these problems -- including the funders' problem of systematically monitoring compliance with their mandate -- is for *all* self-archiving mandates -- institutional and funder -- to stipulate that deposit should be in the author's IR (convergent deposit). That way institutions are maximally motivated to adopt mandates of their own; authors have only one deposit to make, for all papers, in one place, their own IRs; institutions can monitor funder mandate compliance as part of grant fulfillment, and the automatic harvesting can be done in the sole direction it is really needed: IR to CR. Robert mentions two other points below: publisher resistance to CR deposit and the question of XML: (a) In the OAI-compliant, interoperable age, there is no need for the full-texts to be located in more than one place (except for redundancy, back-up and preservation, of course). If the full-text is already in the IR, all the CR needs to harvest is the
Re: Funder mandated deposit in centralised or subject based
On 21 Feb 2010, at 13:55, Kiley ,Robert wrote: To give a very practical example there are some publishers (e.g. Elsevier) who allow authors to self-archive papers in an IR, but do NOT allow self-archiving in a central repository like PMC or UKPMC. To be clear, if such papers were harvested into UKPMC from an IR, then they would be subject to a formal take-down notice. If the metadata of the harvested article included the ISSN (or ISSNs) of the journal in question then (a) you would know what you were harvesting and (b) you would be able to filter appropriately In addition to the rights-management problem, there are other issues we need to address such as how a manuscript, ingested from an IR, could be attached to the relevant funder grant, It could include the id of the research grant. In view of these issues our preferred approach is to encourage researchers to deposit centrally, and then provide IR's with a simple mechanism whereby this content can be ingested into their repository. I can understand why a central deposit solution appeals to UKPMC. I would equally be able to understand if the 182 members of the UK Council of Research Repositories had a different perspective :-) However there is enough REF pressure in the system to encourage joined up thinking, so I hope that the UK repository community, the UK research funders and the repository platforms/developers can work together to see their way through this OA problem/opportunity. -- Les Carr
Re: Captured product vs. service
Dear Steve, In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. Paul -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Steve Berry Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 10:54 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject:     Re: Captured product vs. service There are multiple ways to achieve that same goal. If the society is willing to give up copyright altogether, that offers one pathway. For authors to give publishers unrestricted licenses is another. Both represent larger changes from the present system than for the publisher to give an unrestricted license to the author. But let's look one step further: can any reader, anyone who downloads a publication, distribute that download completely without restriction?        Just to stimulate...        Best to all,        Steve Berry On Feb 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Marc Couture wrote: Steve Berry wrote: if the journal that published the article wants to make back issues available in some new format, e.g. some new electronic means, and the authors hold the copyrights, then the journal must get permission from every author to put their articles in the new format. There is another solution, much more author-friendly: instead of requiring transfer of the full copyright, then giving (back) the author some specific permissions, the journal could simply require to be granted a non-exclusive license to do what it wants, that is, to publish the article in any format. But it appears the APS wants more than make back issues available in some new format (see below). ... APS now holds the copyrights but gives authors full permission to distribute their articles with no constraint. This seems to achieve the situation for authors that we'd like to see, yet does not constrain the publisher. It's true that, according to the APS copyright agreement (http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf ), authors may distribute quite freely, in print and electronic formats, their postprints, or revised manuscripts. As publishers copyright agreements go, this is quite generous. But restrictions to the uses allowed the author do exist: for instance, use must not involve a fee; derivative works must contain less than 50% of the original and at least 10% of new content. This means that an author could not publish a translation, or a slightly modified version of his article, as a book chapter, without permission from the publisher. I think this could also qualifiy as a situation we (authors) would like to see. Marc Couture
Re: Captured product vs. service
On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:56, Uhlir, Paul wrote: In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. CC licenses are not without restrictions! By Attribution Only do you mean http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ ? --- Les Carr
Re: Captured product vs. service
I was referring to the first license below, Les. It has very few restrictions. One could use the CC0 license, which dedicates the work to the public domain, but almost all scientists want attribution, since that is the currency of non-commercial intellectual work. This is why I would reject the pure public domain status of research publications that are the result of government funded research, as suggested by Michael Eisen. There are other reasons to treat the pure public domain option with scepticism, but that is the main one in my view. Paul -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 4:52 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject:Â Â Â Â Â Re: Captured product vs. service On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:56, Uhlir, Paul wrote: In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. CC licenses are not without restrictions! By Attribution Only do you mean http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ ? --- Les Carr
Re: Captured product vs. service
Yes - I agree with Paul. There's very little lost relative to the public domain by going with the CCby license - it's what we chose long ago to use at PLoS. But it's worth pointing out that the currency of non-commercial intellectual work is citation, which is very different from the attribution protected by the CCby license. Citation is an academic tradition, and the expectation that one cites works they use applies to any published work, no matter the terms under which it was distributed. For example, all works of US government employees have been in the public domain for many decades. But - by tradition if not by law - one still has to cite them when they are used. The CCby license deals with something very different, requiring that, when the work is reproduced, the original citation must be maintained in the copy. Since normal academic referencing does not usually involve replication of the work, this term is moot. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing against the use of the CCby license - this is something I strongly advocate. But this is because I see the value in maintaining attribution in a future world where papers are widely replicated, repackaged, etc... - not because it has any real impact on the current academic citation system. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Uhlir, Paul puh...@nas.edu wrote: I was referring to the first license below, Les. It has very few restrictions. One could use the CC0 license, which dedicates the work to the public domain, but almost all scientists want attribution, since that is the currency of non-commercial intellectual work. This is why I would reject the pure public domain status of research publications that are the result of government funded research, as suggested by Michael Eisen. There are other reasons to treat the pure public domain option with scepticism, but that is the main one in my view. Paul -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 4:52 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject:     Re: Captured product vs. service On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:56, Uhlir, Paul wrote: In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. CC licenses are not without restrictions! By Attribution Only do you mean http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ ? --- Les Carr -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley
